[Feature Request] New Event Type: Group Hunt

[+vpdj]

I propose a new Event Type: Group Hunt

 

This would be a new event type - allowing people to organize a group of geocachers to get together for a group hunt for caches in a specific area, trail, or park.

 

I realize that the "Groundspeak rules" would have to be loosened to allow this to happen - but think about it for a minute - what is so different about sitting in a pizza joint to talk about caching for an hour versus gathering a group of geocachers together to go look for a bunch of caches?

 

It gives new geocachers a chance to meet others and attempt caches that they would never dream of trying by themselves.

Sure, some Cache Owners of "impossible" caches - intentionally difficult to find - will not love the idea, but those of us spending hours and hours befuddled would love others to share our grief/appreciation for the cache. (maybe add an attribute "no group hunt" for those "special" caches but that would be hard to enforce since anyone can join forces with a few others to go get a cache anytime)

 

The organizer would set a date and time and area for the Group Hunt and anyone interested could join in.

 

The safety and comraderie of going out into the woods with a group is fantastic.

 

Sure, Meetup or Facebook, or email lists could attempt to do this, but none would have the impact of geocaching.com - you can only reach out and invite those you already know with those other mediums - but with geocaching.com, you can reach out to any geocachers in the area - or visiting the area around the group hunt timeframe.

 

"Calling All Cachers" - Group Hunt - 6/1/2013 - 8am to noon - Meet at posted cords at ________Park - Let's Go Caching Together...

[Pup Patrol]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=284410

 

 

B.

[+vpdj]

Very interesting reading - a few nonsensical rants - but overall good information

 

Sounds like all that were involved in the "Trial Runs" for "Organized Group Hunts" in Ontario really enjoyed them.

 

I have held about 50 weekly Group Hunts - over the past year+ and have not had more than a dozen geocachers show up - usually it was 6-10 geocachers - mainly for 4 to 6 hour hikes with a specific list of caches targeted - listed in the email and local caching organization posts. On one difficult cache, I split up into 3 groups of 4 cachers to make it work better. Up to a dozen cachers on a hunt together has worked out great for me. I must say that on one hike I really needed the support of the rest of the group and would have been in big trouble if I had gone out caching alone.

 

I think that this is a great way to meet other cachers - over 50 different cachers have gone on at least one of my organized group hunts - I do not think I have had the same group on any of the group hunts.

 

Technology could be a big help in setting up the group hunts - show a list of caches in an area and allow a checkbox to select which ones would be included on the group hunt - then include that list on the cache page - and send the CO a message that their cache will be included in the hunt.

 

I have only had one CO indicate that that one particular cache should not be target by the organized group hunt - we have visited others from the same CO, but since that one was a difficult puzzle, he wanted everyone to solve it first. Again, technology could help here too - checking on the "Will Attend" to see if updated coords have been posted on targeted puzzle caches - and sending reminder emails (solve puzzle first) - or even blocking the "will attend" - just a thought...

[+cerberus1]

Well, according to this it's approved, with the latest news in August last year, when Sandy said it was on the "back-burner".

 

Still, can't hurt for this to stay and remind TPTB to occasionally update on progress.

I for one had no idea this was someday coming to fruition, probably due to the few times I ever go to the Canada forums (and looked at the NATN site twice).

 

- I bet the rest of the World would kinda like to know too.

[cezanne]

I have only had one CO indicate that that one particular cache should not be target by the organized group hunt - we have visited others from the same CO, but since that one was a difficult puzzle, he wanted everyone to solve it first.

 

Actually, I do not own a single cache which I would like to be part of an organized group hunt. This not only refers to the caches where prior to the start a puzzle has to be solved. If a cache of mine happened to be visited by a large group, regardless of whether in a manner organized via gc.com or elsewhere, I'd archive the cache right away.

I also asked a while ago for an attribute that makes clear that no visit in larger groups is desired.

 

For some of my caches already 10 visitors at the same time time pose an issue while 20 would be too much for almost all of them.

In my area there are so many cachers that organized group hunts would end up with 50 and more participants very easily. The same is true for small local events of the traditional alread existing style.

 

I do not own an active night cache (I only have co-owned one that we archived years ago), but I think that organized group hunts via gc.com that somehow provide the participants with a kind of score (regardless of whether this score counts together with the usual score in which case things would become even worse) will lead to the death of almost all existing night caches and other technically involved caches. Already now such caches are often visited in groups with 10 and more participants (against the will of the majority of the cache owners), but a setting where such hunts are announced on gc.com and are thus visible to much more cachers will lead to a vast increase in the number of participants and will become a serious danger for the future of geocaching in countries like my home country where most caches do not have explicit permission and are there simply as long as noone complains.

 

Cezanne

[+Der Wald-Pirat]

If you don't want your cache to be group hunted, just say so in the cache description.

That's similar to caches which are not allowed to be searched at night, at several months for bat protection etc.

If someone publishes an event which includes the search of a cache not be group hunted, you can simply post NA to the event.

[cezanne]

If someone publishes an event which includes the search of a cache not be group hunted, you can simply post NA to the event.

 

One can, but it makes no sense unless as the guidelines do not take into account such aspects.

 

It would make more sense to consider potential troubles with such events before introducing them than having to choose inadequate or

inappropriate approaches afterwards.

 

Cezanne

[+vpdj]

I agree that difficult puzzles should not be the target of Group Hunts - unless all attending have solved the puzzles.

 

I like Group Hunts because I am sometimes great (but most times terrible) at finding the caches, but I enjoy getting out for nice hikes in great locations. Going with a small group makes the search go faster (1 person searching for an hour vs. 6 searching for 10 minutes). I simply do not feel safe going out alone onto some more difficult treks - but with a group of 3 to 12, it works out fantastic - I get the good scenery with the safety in numbers and some camaraderie as an added bonus.

[+vpdj]

So I see two potential solutions -

 

1) to have a new attribute - group hunt/no group hunt

2) in the selection of the caches for a group hunt (checkboxes I proposed earlier), not include puzzle caches with a difficulty over 2.5

[cezanne]

 

I like Group Hunts because I am sometimes great (but most times terrible) at finding the caches, but I enjoy getting out for nice hikes in great locations. Going with a small group makes the search go faster (1 person searching for an hour vs. 6 searching for 10 minutes). I simply do not feel safe going out alone onto some more difficult treks - but with a group of 3 to 12, it works out fantastic - I get the good scenery with the safety in numbers and some camaraderie as an added bonus.

 

For groups of 3-12 in my area no organized group hunts are required. If organized group hunts existed, they would be attended by 50 or even 100 people (in some cases also 200 is not inconceivable - many normal event caches in my area are full booked often weeks before they take place) and that causes a problem to many caches regardless of their type.

A group of 10-12 people can easily result already from 2 families with children and maybe grandparents.

It is not that sort of group visits that I'm concerned about. Organized group hunts will attract additional people who would like to get extra points/extra credit/potentially new icons etc they do not get by just going for caches in a group.

 

I guess for cachers in areas where much less cachers are around and where also the cache density is much smaller and caches get less visits than around here in my area it might be difficult that it is not so much whether someone solves a puzzle or does not solve it that causes my major concern. I sometimes even use difficult puzzles for a multi stage cache mainly to reduce the traffic to the outdoor stages

and not for the sake of the puzzle in its own right.

 

Cezanne

[+vpdj]

Having only led groups of a dozen or so on the 50+ cache hunts I have organized in the DC area, I find it hard to fathom having a group of 50 or 100 or 200 going out together to look for a bunch of caches. Maybe it is just the area I am in, or the cache hunts I have organized, but none have approached those numbers.

 

However, if it did, I think that the best thing to do would be to break up the larger masses into smaller groups (max 10-12) and send them on different "missions" - perhaps starting at the other end of the trail - passing each other in the middle - or going clockwise/counter-clockwise - if you have 2 groups - or have a printout of a different set of caches for each group - or resort to a timed-start - every 15 minutes.

 

Another possible solution would be to limit the "will attends" to a maximum number - but there are always those that say they will and then don't - and those that do not indicate and show up anyways.

 

Regardless, by having the "will attends" count somewhat accurate, the organizer of the event can make plans as to how to split the group per the previous paragraph if it gets too big. I had one cache hunt where 3 or 4 cachers per group was best, so we had a timed start - and it worked out great.

 

Or if there are enough group hunts planned around the same time, then people will choose which one has the most caches that they have not found - or that they most want to find - again limiting the number of attendees at any one event.

 

People will probably not attend group hunts where they have found most of the caches on the list.

For this reason alone, Regular Events - like the NOVAGO quarterly events will always attract more attendees than any group hunt.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I don't see the point of taking a large group caching. I've taken many groups out and have found there's a point at which the group gets too big, it just gets awkward and the group gets harder to manage. I wouldn't want a group of more than 12.

 

Why not just take a few friends out? Or if you really want to open it up to strangers, go through meetup.com. Going through geocaching.com, you're going to have the burden or more people and you'll have to find a way to accomodate them all.

[+vpdj]

There are many advantages of a group hunt of about 6-12 geocachers:

 

1) Safety in numbers

2) Quicker finds - shorter searches

3) Camaraderie

4) Meeting other geocachers - making new friends

5) New geocachers learning from more experienced geocachers in the field

6) Ability to tackle more difficult hides

7) See more interesting locations and sights - I would have totally missed the two baby fawns sleeping in a little depression in the ground on the last hike if someone else had not noticed them

 

Main drawback I have heard is in the unlikely case that the number grows beyond a dozen - and I have proposed several ways to alleviate that issue - it would be up to the organizer to establish methods to reduce the number in each group to a dozen or so.

1) Time delayed starts

2) Alternate paths

3) Different target caches

4) Several group hunts around the same time

 

Can we get this put into place soon? What is the next step?

[+The_Incredibles_]

There are many advantages of a group hunt of about 6-12 geocachers:

 

I agree. If you read my post, I said I take groups out, but don't like more than 12.

 

If you only want 6-12 people, you don't need a geocaching.com event.

 

All you need to do is contact a few friends.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Can we get this put into place soon? What is the next step?

 

Groundspeak's not going to give you what you want.

 

I would suggest Facebook, meetup, emails or phone calls.

[+vpdj]

There are many advantages of a group hunt of about 6-12 geocachers:

 

I agree. If you read my post, I said I take groups out, but don't like more than 12.

 

If you only want 6-12 people, you don't need a geocaching.com event.

 

All you need to do is contact a few friends.

 

Contacting a few friends does not get the mixture of new/old cachers together - and does not allow for the serendipity of meeting new friends on the group hunt.

[+vpdj]

Can we get this put into place soon? What is the next step?

 

Groundspeak's not going to give you what you want.

 

I would suggest Facebook, meetup, emails or phone calls.

 

Sorry- - too defeatist for me - I see something potentially great - and say "Why Not?" and "Let's Do It"

 

They even tried it and all involved liked it - seems like a simple change

[+The A-Team]

Sorry- - too defeatist for me - I see something potentially great - and say "Why Not?" and "Let's Do It"

Actually, her attitude is more realist than defeatist. There are dozens (hundreds?) of changes or suggestions that have significant support from many users and haven't been implemented. Often, when changes are made to the site, the changes either miss the point of what the people wanted, or change something that nobody asked to have changed.

 

The reality is that most of the discussions in this forum will lead exactly nowhere, no matter how much support there may be behind an idea.

[jholly]

There are many advantages of a group hunt of about 6-12 geocachers:

 

I agree. If you read my post, I said I take groups out, but don't like more than 12.

 

If you only want 6-12 people, you don't need a geocaching.com event.

 

All you need to do is contact a few friends.

 

Contacting a few friends does not get the mixture of new/old cachers together - and does not allow for the serendipity of meeting new friends on the group hunt.

In the NW we havae something called a cache machine. Check out the NW forums and you will see the planning going on for the one in Olympia. Why a new event when this has worked quite well for years?

[+vpdj]

There are many advantages of a group hunt of about 6-12 geocachers:

 

I agree. If you read my post, I said I take groups out, but don't like more than 12.

 

If you only want 6-12 people, you don't need a geocaching.com event.

 

All you need to do is contact a few friends.

 

Contacting a few friends does not get the mixture of new/old cachers together - and does not allow for the serendipity of meeting new friends on the group hunt.

In the NW we havae something called a cache machine. Check out the NW forums and you will see the planning going on for the one in Olympia. Why a new event when this has worked quite well for years?

 

Your Cache Machine event sounds like a lot of crazy fun - but I do not know if it is the same thing as I was proposing...

 

I think that the scope and intent of your Cache Machine is far beyond what I am proposing - a Group Hunt - only around a dozen per group - 3 to 5 hours of hiking with from 1 to 20 caches "on the target list" - none are cache and dashes - all take more than 6 minutes to locate. Compared with 100+ caches over 13 hours - with the "event" being a dinner afterwards - but why not an event for the cache hunting part anyways?

[team tisri]

I agree that difficult puzzles should not be the target of Group Hunts - unless all attending have solved the puzzles.

 

I like Group Hunts because I am sometimes great (but most times terrible) at finding the caches, but I enjoy getting out for nice hikes in great locations. Going with a small group makes the search go faster (1 person searching for an hour vs. 6 searching for 10 minutes). I simply do not feel safe going out alone onto some more difficult treks - but with a group of 3 to 12, it works out fantastic - I get the good scenery with the safety in numbers and some camaraderie as an added bonus.

 

I'm not sure that requiring attendees to have solved the puzzles makes any sense. Many caching events talk of being able to compare notes on difficult puzzles and part of adopting new cachers (which seems like an accepted thing to do) would probably include showing them how puzzle caches work.

 

The only real issue I can see with a group hunt is if the group got too big for the area in question and that's not something that can be regulated centrally. One area might work just fine with a group of 200 cachers turning up at once while another might be badly damaged with a group a fraction of that size.

 

I like the idea of a caching event actually including some geocaching - at things stand it seems odd that an event can be called a cache even though requiring people to go out to find caches as part of the event is prohibited.

 

I can see all sorts of problems if we end up with two cache types that require attributes to separate them, which would invariably happen if we have a "group hunt" event type and a "no group hunting" attribute on caches. Again the problem comes down to definition - if a cache can't cope with half a dozen people turning up at once it shouldn't be listed at all but it seems impossible to create an objective definition of when a group becomes a group big enough to be covered by "no group hunts", not least because many times a single caching account might actually consist of five family members and therefore count as a "group" in its own right.

 

Perhaps the answer is just to retain the status quo, encourage people to go out in small groups as part of a regular caching event, and let people get together informally to go looking for boxes. I think the fundamental question is whether we need a specific way of inviting unknown numbers of unknown people to turn up to cache en masse, whether people deserve an extra smiley for turning up for a group hunt, and whether inviting unknown numbers of people is a good way to deal with caches that might involve more difficult manoeuvres. I might appreciate meeting up with someone who owned climbing gear and knew how to use it so I could get some of the silly T5 caches in my area but I'd want to know I could trust them and their gear, and certainly wouldn't want to be learning the ropes if 83 other cachers had turned up.

[team tisri]

Sorry- - too defeatist for me - I see something potentially great - and say "Why Not?" and "Let's Do It"

Actually, her attitude is more realist than defeatist. There are dozens (hundreds?) of changes or suggestions that have significant support from many users and haven't been implemented. Often, when changes are made to the site, the changes either miss the point of what the people wanted, or change something that nobody asked to have changed.

 

The reality is that most of the discussions in this forum will lead exactly nowhere, no matter how much support there may be behind an idea.

 

Sad but true. The last one I noticed was a change to provide a way that trackables could be marked as missing even if the owner and cache owner weren't keeping on top of things. From what I recall it had been submitted (presumably for development scheduling) and a year later people were asking what the progress was, only for Jeremy to say there was no commitment to implement it and so there was nothing to say.

 

This forum is a collection of interesting ideas for anyone wishing to set up a site in direct competition to geocaching.com but the chances of anything being implemented by Groundspeak appear to lie somewhere between slim and none.

[+The_Incredibles_]

There are many advantages of a group hunt of about 6-12 geocachers:

 

I agree. If you read my post, I said I take groups out, but don't like more than 12.

 

If you only want 6-12 people, you don't need a geocaching.com event.

 

All you need to do is contact a few friends.

 

Contacting a few friends does not get the mixture of new/old cachers together - and does not allow for the serendipity of meeting new friends on the group hunt.

 

I wouldn't say that. You can always invite new cachers to come along with you, have your friends bring their friend etc. It can be as interesting as you make it. I say it's possible because I've been doing this sort of thing for years. Invite people from work one time, invite people from church another time, from your children's school etc. It's as simple as talking to someone at an event or sending an email or posting on facebook.

 

I've also been a meetup.com organizer for years and this is something that might appeal to you, if you want to meet new people. Who knows, there maybe already be a geocaching meetup group for your area. Maybe check it out. The only thing I have to say is the flakiness factor is higher in meetup than, say, if you invite people personally, but it does open up the possibilities.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Sorry- - too defeatist for me - I see something potentially great - and say "Why Not?" and "Let's Do It"

Actually, her attitude is more realist than defeatist. There are dozens (hundreds?) of changes or suggestions that have significant support from many users and haven't been implemented. Often, when changes are made to the site, the changes either miss the point of what the people wanted, or change something that nobody asked to have changed.

 

The reality is that most of the discussions in this forum will lead exactly nowhere, no matter how much support there may be behind an idea.

 

I'm afraid I have to agree. I don't want to be overly negative, but rather save you time and suggest alternatives.

 

But by all means, if you feel passionate about this, do your best to make it happen and let us know the result.

[cezanne]

 

I can see all sorts of problems if we end up with two cache types that require attributes to separate them, which would invariably happen if we have a "group hunt" event type and a "no group hunting" attribute on caches. Again the problem comes down to definition - if a cache can't cope with half a dozen people turning up at once it shouldn't be listed at all but it seems impossible to create an objective definition of when a group becomes a group big enough to be covered by "no group hunts", not least because many times a single caching account might actually consist of five family members and therefore count as a "group" in its own right.

 

 

I do not agree at all. If a cache is safeguarded by a difficult puzzle, the probability that a large group of cachers where all adult members of the group who are cachers have all solved the puzzle within a small frame of time is small. So if the cachers are honest and do not visit caches where they have not solved the puzzle, everything works out fine.

 

Moreover, I do not know a single night cache where it does not cause problems with too many people light around with their high-technology torches. I do not think that this means that no night caches should be hidden at all.

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

 

I can see all sorts of problems if we end up with two cache types that require attributes to separate them, which would invariably happen if we have a "group hunt" event type and a "no group hunting" attribute on caches. Again the problem comes down to definition - if a cache can't cope with half a dozen people turning up at once it shouldn't be listed at all but it seems impossible to create an objective definition of when a group becomes a group big enough to be covered by "no group hunts", not least because many times a single caching account might actually consist of five family members and therefore count as a "group" in its own right.

 

 

I do not agree at all. If a cache is safeguarded by a difficult puzzle, the probability that a large group of cachers where all adult members of the group who are cachers have all solved the puzzle within a small frame of time is small. So if the cachers are honest and do not visit caches where they have not solved the puzzle, everything works out fine.

 

This ignores the way cachers get together to solve puzzles mob handed, or swap hints to puzzles (and sometimes swap answers), and so on. If I'm going out with a couple of caching buddies I'm not going to insist they look the other way as I grab a cache just because they didn't solve it yet. To me caching is about getting outside and finding boxes rather than obeying endless rules that serve no purpose other than providing a list of reasons why you can't claim this box or that box.

 

If you're not careful you're going to specify a group event where the qualifications to turn up are so strict only the organiser and selected friends will qualify, in which case there's no point listing the event at all.

 

It's also not clear why the timeframe of solving the puzzle is relevant. I've got puzzles on my list that I solved many months ago but haven't been to find yet. I solved one series and didn't get to actually go and find them for over 12 months (by which time a couple of them had been moved by the owner).

 

Moreover, I do not know a single night cache where it does not cause problems with too many people light around with their high-technology torches. I do not think that this means that no night caches should be hidden at all.

 

This "too many people" is pretty much the point I was making. How many is "too many"? Can you apply a universal value for every single night cache out there? If not then a restriction in a "group hunt" event is useless. Even if you can determine that a particular night cache would suffer problems if more than 10 people turn up with "high-technology torches", what if people turned up with lesser torches? How far away would the next group of 9 have to be before they caused a problem? How far away should they wait, and for how long, before the first group were expected to move on without finding it?

 

All this comes back to my thought of just retaining the status quo. If a few people go to pick off some caches as a group they can figure it out as they go, and it's unlikely that several dozen people will suddenly decide to go for a remote cache at the same time. If people attack a cache as a group (especially one with multiple stages) it's entirely possible that nobody will technically complete every single stage but the group as a whole completes the cache and so the members get to claim it. It's really no different to a group of people (of whatever size) looking for a traditional cache and all signing it once it's found regardless of which member actually finds it.

[cezanne]

 

This "too many people" is pretty much the point I was making. How many is "too many"? Can you apply a universal value for every single night cache out there? If not then a restriction in a "group hunt" event is useless.

 

I was trying to make a different point which is not related to restrictions for a group hunt.

I do not agree with your statement that if a cache does not tolerate a larger group, then it should not be hidden.

It makes a huge difference if 3 or maybe 5 people run around in a small forest area with their strong torches or whether 20 are doing so. For all night caches I'm familiar with 20 is too much and organized group hunts in my area would attract 50 and much more in many cases. Already hunts organized via facebook or local geocaching forums easily lead to groups of 20 and more people.

 

The same type of argument is true with respect to puzzle caches. Of course group hunts take place already now, but when organized via facebook, local forums etc, the number of attending people is typically smaller than if announced on gc.com (and keep in mind that an attended log also provides a "+1" experience to add on top).

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

 

This "too many people" is pretty much the point I was making. How many is "too many"? Can you apply a universal value for every single night cache out there? If not then a restriction in a "group hunt" event is useless.

 

I was trying to make a different point which is not related to restrictions for a group hunt.

I do not agree with your statement that if a cache does not tolerate a larger group, then it should not be hidden.

It makes a huge difference if 3 or maybe 5 people run around in a small forest area with their strong torches or whether 20 are doing so. For all night caches I'm familiar with 20 is too much and organized group hunts in my area would attract 50 and much more in many cases. Already hunts organized via facebook or local geocaching forums easily lead to groups of 20 and more people.

 

I'm not saying any area with a cache should be able to withstand a group of any size, my point is that if you start saying "no groups" you need to define what counts as a "group". A "group" might be three individual cachers, but a "single cacher" might be a family of 7 people caching under a single account. If three such families turned up and searched together you could be looking at 21 people. Either way it's nigh on impossible to say what size group starts to cause problems at any individual cache area so trying to impose blanket restrictions is pointless.

 

The same type of argument is true with respect to puzzle caches. Of course group hunts take place already now, but when organized via facebook, local forums etc, the number of attending people is typically smaller than if announced on gc.com (and keep in mind that an attended log also provides a "+1" experience to add on top).

 

Sure, which is why I'm inclined to leave the status quo as is, not have a group hunt cache type, and let people make informal arrangements to cache with others rather than having a specific event type that could result in groups large enough to cause damage to sensitive areas.

 

I think we're agreeing that the "group hunt" cache isn't a good idea, even if for different reasons.

[+vpdj]

I still love the GROUP HUNT idea - found a local hiking group that handles up to 150 people on a hike - by splitting into groups of 15 with a leader in each group - and organizes the groups by the pace - speed walkers, moderate pace (~3 mph) and social walkers (~2 mph) - people self-select into the appropriate groups depending upon their desired speed - and then on large group hikes, they have 1 or 2 leaders at the back of the pack to help along any stragglers to complete the hike. It sounds like they have hit upon the optimum maximum for any group hiking together - similar to my experience of a dozen for geocaching - and have a good method for handling any larger groups.

 

The unique aspect of geocaching as a group is that if someone has already found the target caches, they generally will opt-out of the group hunt - and go after caches that they have not found yet - so that automatically limits the number in any group hunt.

[+vpdj]

Anybody know how to get Groundspeak to consider this further?

Edited June 17, 2013 by vpdj

[+cerberus1]

Well, it's not quite a year yet...

[+vpdj]

Which year? - LOL - Well, now would be a great time to kick this off...

[+vpdj]

Maybe we need another - larger area - trial of this feature? Like the DC area?